• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

The Force & Rebels - So close, yet so far?

Status
Not open for further replies.

WorkingClassRugger

Michael Lynagh (62)
Simple Q. Simple A.

Rebels suck at D.
Force suck at A.

You'd think with Muggs on board that the Rebels would be a pretty solid defensive unit. They can attack with the best of them. As for the Force, they have only the one truly class weapon in their backline and it's only his first real full season of Super Rugby. Outside of that, they have nothing. Cummins is a strong runner but no to the same level as Godwin who is actually evasive.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
The Force's biggest issue is their attack.

When they actually show up, and make a fist of it (IE the Reds/Crusaders/Tahs/Chiefs) etc, their defence seems to be well organised, their breakdown work solid enough. THeir attack is just so unimaginative, its all based around someone making a break by themselves and then everyone just trying to support. There doesn't seem to be any purpose and intent when they have the ball. To fix this, I reckon they should throw everything they can at Phil Mooney as an attack coach. He always seems to get sides humming in attack and working as a cohesive unit. Just not a good head coach.
I don't know how to solve the fading at the end of games, but scoring an extra 10-15 points a game would certainly go a long way to fixing that.


For the Rebels, its just purely defence. They clearly score a lot of points, but just cant prevent letting in even more. To fix this they should be throwing everything they can (IE Beale's paycheck) at the Fainga'a twins. If anything in the world is going to fix a sides leaky defense, having Colby, Saia and Ant on the same side is going to do it.
The other thing they desperately need is a flyhalf. Not Beiber, not Beale, an actual flyhalf so that those two can play their own game out wide where they belong. Someone who plays like Matt To'omua or Johnny Wilkinson. Rock solid defender with a good tactical boot, who can run phases. Not an off the cuff running 10, a solid, hard tackling and well organised 10. With Beiber and Beale, they can run a lethal counter-attack when in general play, and score their tries that way. For the rest of the time though, they're really lacking in a good 10 who can organise the team and direct them around the field. Run an Eddie Jones' Wallabies style routine with 25 different set plays off the 9 and 10, and build pressure by doing that, and then let Beiber and Beale do their thing when the opportunities arise out wide.
And couple of decent props wouldn't go astray either.


Agree B'man.

But the Force's issue is the structure of the side and the tactics they play. just like the Tahs for many years they are playing a risk averse game that is designed to minimize the opportunities of the opposition. It does it very well, but the Tahs with more individually brilliant attacks failed to win games as the structure rarely creates anything in attack itself. It is little to do with the players and everything to do with the tactics. I suggested about 5 weeks ago that such tactics would get them close a lot of the times and they would grind out a few wins, with a couple of humiliating defeats thrown in as their defence has an off day. Lo and behold, it is what has happened. It is in fact a great example of what I said about the Tahs for the last 5 or 10 years. Look at the results and methods, the Force are the Waratahs of 2012.

The Rebels defence is just shockingly inconsistent, it isn't technically bad, in fact it is one of the better defensive systems. As so many have said defence is often about attitude. It shouldn't surprise anyone therefore that the Rebels are as they are, the squad clearly have some issues. The coaches next year whoever they are must be selected on their ability to solve these issues first and foremost, whilst continuing with the good things they have been doing. They are certainly further ahead then the Force are after a lot more years in development.
 

Woodenspoon

Herbert Moran (7)
You'd think with Muggs on board that the Rebels would be a pretty solid defensive unit. They can attack with the best of them. As for the Force, they have only the one truly class weapon in their backline and it's only his first real full season of Super Rugby. Outside of that, they have nothing. Cummins is a strong runner but no to the same level as Godwin who is actually evasive.
I don't think Force have such a weak backline or Rebels have a weak defense. The explanation could be more complicated.
Writing down the Rebels and Force backlines side by side, we have:

11 Cummins/Mitchell
12 Godwin/Sidey
13 Jacobs/Inman
14 Dellit/English
15 Hayward/Woodward

In fact the center of Rebels attack is made up by former Force players and three other handy players. I don't think they were renowned for being great try-scorers, line-breakers while they were in Perth and although Mitchell is a good player, I guess no one would consider this backline one of Australia's best.
On the other side, Force can count on a talented player like Godwin, a Wallaby like Cummins, committed players like Dellit or Hayward, Mafi (as long as he was playing) and Jacobs/Rasolea.
One could easily claim that Force backline is actually stronger than the Rebels' one. Yet Rebels seem to manage to score a lot, while Force don't.
If we consider the defences of the two teams, well, looking at the statistics one may be surprised to discover that Force have a lower tackling success rate than the Rebels most of the times.
In addition, matches are often decided by individual episodes, and Force players do have a degree in doing the wrong thing at the wrong moment.
Last but not least, the Force lost a couple of matches just beacause they didn't have a reliable kicker. So, in my opinion, the real problem is the way they attack, not backline players
 

RoffsChoice

Jim Lenehan (48)
I think what it really comes down to is the coach:
Damien Hill seems to be a skilled tactical coach but a below average skills coach.
Michael Foley seems to be a skilled skills coach but a below average tactical coach.
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
The Gods smiled upon the Rebels tonight, and may have even provided some divine wind to blow McKibbins penalty shot off course.

They deserved their win tonight and didn't fade out in the last 20 minutes as they have famously done in some games this season, but it could so easily have gone down in the "so close yet so far" category had the Tahs got that final penalty kick through the sticks.
 

Bruwheresmycar

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
The answer for me is simple. Both teams lack a strong local competition behind them. I'm not having a go, I'm just pointing out that behind all successful long term franchises is a strong base.

The Force and Rebels can compete fine, but the extra edge other franchises have is that depth at the local level.

But the point of their existence is to promote rugby at the grassroots and turn both states into strong rugby bases in Australia. So at some point in the future WA and VIC will certainly be challengers at the top level. While all the other provinces/states put all their effort into sustaining their competitions. We have clear goals to rapidly improve the depth in local competitions.
 

Rebel rouser

Ted Fahey (11)
Was there only 12000 there?

Sounded like a lot more from the effects microphones on Foxtel.

Thanks mate. Yup 12,000. We definitely pride ourselves on punching above our weight when it comes to being vocal.

And yeah, agree Jermano. AAMI at capacity v the lions is going to be fricken amazing.
 
M

Moono75

Guest
Not sure what the context of this thread is, but the Force regurlarley have higher crowd attendances than the Rebles and if you want to have an indication of crowd involvement just listen to the roar after the game against the Crusaders. Puts the other state unions to shame.
 

USARugger

John Thornett (49)
Not sure what the context of this thread is, but the Force regurlarley have higher crowd attendances than the Rebles and if you want to have an indication of crowd involvement just listen to the roar after the game against the Crusaders. Puts the other state unions to shame.

The difference is like 200-400 people. Force attendance has been steadily dropping since 2008.

Rebels 2013 Average Attendance: 11,877

Force 2013 Average Attendance: 12,164
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top